Open markets, not land

The most amusing comment in the debate over the Caribbean Free Trade Agreement came from Robert Coker, vice-president of Clewiston-based U.S. Sugar: "We were used as political pawns."

For more than four decades, American sugar cane and beet companies have influenced farm policy far beyond their relatively small numbers. Through loan guarantees and import quotas, they have enjoyed usually stable prices on the American consumer's tab. For more than 30 years, Florida cane growers polluted the Everglades without having to pay for the damage. They accomplished all that through one of Washington's most impressive lobbying efforts. Their presence in Tallahassee is just as strong. Two years ago, they got the Legislature to delay the Everglades cleanup deadline by 10 years.

Yet when CAFTA threatened to increase sugar imports by 1 percent, the growers acted like Halloween trick-or-treaters who came to the door expecting the usual candy bar and instead got a toothbrush. They complained that since so many countries have sugar programs, sugar cannot be negotiated bilaterally -- as was the case with CAFTA. In fact, they just weren't used to losing, which is what happened last week when the House approved CAFTA 217-215. The Senate passed it on June 30, and President Bush signed it Tuesday.

Fifteen Democrats were brave enough to vote for CAFTA, believing that the United States will benefit overall from lower trade barriers. The countries -- Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras -- are in a region where the U.S. wants to encourage democracy, and the hope is that greater access to the U.S. market will benefit Central Americans. Adding the Dominican Republic, where sugar is a major crop, is what annoyed U.S. cane growers.

Roughly 500,000 acres in the Everglades Agricultural Area are in sugar cane. The biggest growth issue facing South Florida is whether a large portion of that land will become residential development. Sugar farmers may use CAFTA to argue for development approval, but state and local governments should reject any such argument. Otherwise, South Florida taxpayers will be the political pawns.